Censorship

You can’t legislate against being a ‘dick’

Pat Brittenden

I wrote a few months ago about football players in the UK being arrested and facing criminal charges for racial taunts, I said then I wasn’t for it, and I have to say I am still not for it. You can’t legislate the ‘dick-ishness’ out of someone.

I could understand if a player was to face a British Football enquiry, that’d make sense, but to head to criminal court, over an offensive statement just rubs me up the wrong way. It’s obviously not that I approve of the statements, but there is something deep in our psyche about speaking freely…even if we are an offensive douche.

It makes me uncomforatble.

Well you can heighten that  uncomfortably now as a 21 year old has just been in court in the UK after ‘tweeting offensive comments‘.

A Welsh student could go to jail after tweeting offensive comments about footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsing during a game on Sunday.

Liam Stacey, from Pontypridd, south Wales, was arrested after the comments were shown to police from Twitter users, including former Liverpool striker Stan Collymore.

The tweet read: “LOL. F*** Muamba. He’s dead.” After various users complained, the 21-year-old replied with a series of offensive messages.

Liam Stacey is obviously an idiot, and an insensitive moron…but is he a criminal for sending offensive tweets…what the heck have we come to?

It feels all a little Orwellian to me…and that worries me.

We have the freedoms to be as offensive as we want, and whilst those amongst with an ounce of sense will realise that what Liam Stacey was reprehensible…it wasn’t criminal.

What’s next? Undercover cops in pubs listening to our conversations to hear an offensive comment?

No matter how hard we try, we cannot legislate away someone being a ‘dick’ and to try will just lead to those of us who are not, to lose some of our freedoms as well.

With freedoms we have to acknowledge that idiots and morons are going to be able to use those freedoms to offend…but it is so much better than the alternative…isn’t it?

Sexy Britney Spears: Acceptable. Dead SVU victim: Acceptable. Skimpily dressed model stretching: Banned!

Pat Brittenden

Before we start this post, please be advised that if you watch the video there is graphic language and sexual themes contained within, I could not find the censored version of the ad.

It’s interesting what gets banned in America, they have really tight laws around profanity and nudity…but not so much around violence.

Think about what you see on CSI, Criminal Minds, SVU etc…but also what get’s bleeped in interview based programmes, and you hardly ever see nudity in American TV.

Well the latest interesting development has just occurred in this seemingly imbalanced censorship with an advert for Zoo York staring model Kate Upton.

Amongst other channels, MTV has banned the advert…MTV…the channel that shows music videos that constantly include sexual themes…not undertones, straight out themes conveying many explicit ideas to their viewers. Just Britney Spears alone has had seven of her MTV friendly videos banned in other parts of the world due to content, so the idea that they would ban this advert is…well weird to say the least.

I am not condoning the advert by pointing out these anomalies, I guess what I am asking is where is the consistency?

What Criminal Minds murder scene is better than sexual innuendo by a cockroach? What Britney Spears ‘Toxic’ scene is better than a model in a skimpy outfit stretching.

It’s weird, but I guess to have all the above mentioned potentially inappropriate fodder before children would be worse, so I guess it is good there is a line somewhere.

I just wonder who the heck drew the line, and how they decided it was where it is?